Filed under: Car Buying, Hybrids/Alternative, Government/Legal, Green
Houses passes bill with $5k Volt tax-credit, mandatory alternative fuel pumps
Most know House Resolution 6899 as the offshore drilling bill, but it also contains the plug-in tax credit that Toyota complained about yesterday, as well as a mandate that all gas stations offer an alternative fuel pump by 2018. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill today with a vote of 236 - 189, and the details of the plug-in tax credit are different than what Automotive News reported yesterday. Kicking Tires reports that the tax credit would apply to any "new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle" with a battery of at least 5 kWh. It would start at $3,000 and add $200 for every kilowatt hour over 5 up to a maximum of $5,000. The 2011 Chevy Volt is the only plug-in vehicle officially confirmed for sale so far, and with a 16kWh battery would max out the credit at $5,000. The bill also reveals that the plug-in tax credit would have an identical lifespan as currently available hybrid tax credits, which means the first 60,000 vehicles per company that meet the requirements would be eligible, and the credit would be reduced by 25% then 50% before being phased out. If passed into law, the plug-in tax credit would take effect after December 31st, 2008, though the first eligible vehicle won't be available for another two years.
As for the section on mandatory alternative fuel pumps, it requires that every gas station owned by a major gas company have at least one alternative fuel pump by 2018. The bill specifies "alternative fuel" as natural gas, E85 or higher, biodiesel, renewable diesel or hydrogen. Any company not in compliance by 2018 would be fined $100,000 per station, though a $50,000 tax credit would be offered to stations that choose an E85 pump. We'll let you discuss the merits of that particular provision in the comments below.
[Source: Kicking Tires]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Ligor 5:15PM (9/17/2008)
when will hte EPA track the acetaldehyde amounts that are a result of burning 85% ethanol?
- that's a carcinogen and if the amount is hight enough it should be illegal to use as an alternative fuel
- all the BS that's taking place.........
Reply
"No Soup for you" Toyota 5:34PM (9/17/2008)
The poor Japanese will be awake for weeks thinking of a way to beat GM to the $5k incentive. LOL!!
On a more serious note, why didn't the idiots in Congress stipulate that to claim the tax credit, the vehicle had to be assembled in the USA?! Why does Congress spend my tax dollars to benefit workers in other countries? Damn them. Maybe someone should break it to Congress that the US isn't exactly the financial empire it used to be.
knifetramp 5:37PM (9/17/2008)
Sorry, didn't mean for the above to be linked to a previous comment.
AZZO45b 6:38PM (9/17/2008)
I'm just a Bill... Sittin' here on Capital Hill... Lookin' for support for my 5K pill...
Sorry School House Rock has me all goofy! :) :)
Flashpoint 6:41PM (9/17/2008)
This is a decent legislative start, but the Chevy Volt alone isn't going to cut it. We need GM and Ford and Chrysler to come up with at least 4 electric / water powered vehicles that don't cost more than their gas counterparts.
GM's current lineup of cars is great besides fuela efficiency. If they had an electric Malibu, electric impala, electric Acadia and electric Colorado as an option, they'd have a great portfolio. The Japanese know the deal, they'll be first to put a full portfolio of alternative energy vehicles on our streets.
An electric Accord or Altima will end up killing our automakers here.
stealthebeatles 5:23PM (9/17/2008)
I really don't think E85 should be considered an alternative fuel for this purpose. It's such a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and just uses resources that could be more effectively allocated elsewhere.
Reply
EVan 6:06PM (9/17/2008)
E85 from cellulosic ethanol is an excellent 'long-term' solution.
(By long term, I mean long enough until we all commute in cold fusion Jetson pods or something similiar... like 100 years or so.)
We'll never quit using fossil fuels but if we could use 85% less and replace the remainder with American supplied fuel sources such as dry waste, switchgrass, bio waste, and more then we're going to be in a much better place than we are now.
AZZO45b 6:16PM (9/17/2008)
We'll never quit using fossil fuels... -EVan
NEVER? Never is not a word I would use. Back in 1984 who would have thought an ultra-thin lap top would be WAY more powerful than the clunky, desk top Mac selling in non Apple stores.
Things ALWAYS change, so I don't have "NEVER" in my vocabulary much these days!
Frank 5:29PM (9/17/2008)
Great, jackup food prices for less efficient fuel, that 50,000 tax credit should have been for hydrogen ... neither one of the sides gets it, rep or dem ... guess we should pick our senators a bit more carefully...
Reply
stealthebeatles 5:33PM (9/17/2008)
Not like we have a very good selection to choose from.
Brian 6:57PM (9/17/2008)
Would you rather buy E85 thats made here in America or buy oil from countries that hates. I would rather my money go to a hard working farmer or a US cellulosic based company than a bunch of towel heads.
tankd0g 7:50PM (9/17/2008)
Dear Brian, the towel heads would like to thank you for buying E85, since it uses more foreign oil per liter to make than simply buying petroleum in the first place would have. Thanks again for the new ipod, your friend from the UAE.
Russell 10:10PM (9/17/2008)
@Brian
Another question,
would you rather buy a car that was made by a hard working American or a one that comes from the land of rice that supposedly like us?
TJ 5:31PM (9/17/2008)
Where would we be without congress to guide us?
/sarc
Reply
Jake B 5:32PM (9/17/2008)
Even more excess spending is always good for a country right? Oh wait... its not. Not to mention Team America is always happy to put American Business in handcuffs. Why not force restaurants to serve less fatty food too? Because it is UNAMERICAN!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Red 5:39PM (9/17/2008)
That in itself would take care of the 35mpg fleet average mandate by CAFE...
...he says eating fried calamari and baked ziti, staring at a chocolate bomb for dessert...
why not the LS2LS7? 5:43PM (9/17/2008)
I'd prefer the law only give credits for vehicles that have noticeable zero-emissions range. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything to break our dependence on oil.
But even as it, it seems okay.
And yes, it does represent a handout to GM, no two ways about that. But Toyota got one too a few years back.
Reply
tankd0g 7:50PM (9/17/2008)
Of course when there was a credit on the Prius it was because they couldn't sell it outside of the deepest granola eating districts of California. And it was only for early adopters, then it ran out. Now hybrids are all the rage and this car that's supposed to be GMs biggest sales hit ever needs a $5k subsidy? Maybe GM can get it applied to Hummers. Might as well go for the brass ring.
why not the LS2LS7? 10:22PM (9/17/2008)
tankd0g:
Don't be obtuse on purpose. You have pointed out yourself that even with $4 or $5 gas this car doesn't make sense financially, and gas is headed to $3 now. Yes, there will be early adopters out there who will sport full price, but on order to really get the ball rolling, it might take some tax credits. Just like it did with the Prius.
It's funny how you take the same thing Toyota got and was a factor in their car's huge success and paint it as a bad thing on the Volt.
Seminole 5:57PM (9/17/2008)
Can we fire congress for shoving the ridiculous excuse for an alternative fuel that is E85 down our throats?
Reply